Hot Topics:

Neal Hooks: National monument proposal would forfeit the perfect balance

Posted:
02/13/2014 02:03:45 PM MST

President Obama is considering the designation of a national monument here in Doña Ana County. His secretary of the Interior, Sally Jewell, proved this recently by touring parts of the proposed area near Las Cruces. At the same time, our two U.S. senators are proposing S1805 — Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Conservation Act. Either way, the risks far outweigh the rewards.

The main reward sought by those in favor of the monument is preservation. Senator Udall's website mentions protecting our "landmarks, archeological and cultural resources" for future generations. This is a legitimate concern because no one wants to destroy these resources.

On the other hand, the main risk associated with the monument proposal is the loss of flexibility. Will we be able to use the land for energy or development as necessary? This is also a legitimate concern.

Ideally, there should be a balance between ensuring both our cultural and natural resources for the good of our community. But, what most people do not understand is that we already have this balance.

The land involved in the monument proposal is already owned and protected by the federal government's Bureau of Land Management (BLM). And federal law dictates that the BLM must manage this land under the principle of "multiple-use."

Advertisement

This means the BLM has the responsibility to do all of the following: "Protect fish and wildlife, scenic values, historical sites, air quality, ecosystems, water, and archaeological values, while allowing for human uses such as recreation, mining, livestock grazing, communication towers, energy development, roads, and pipelines, along with other resources and uses," according to Bill Childress, Las Cruces district BLM manager.

Furthermore, the land-use planning process associated with this BLM responsibility provides the public (i.e. you and me) a voice on how the lands are to be managed. This balance of requirements and oversight provides two things: sensitive areas protected from overrun; while maintaining the potential for surrounding economic development.

So, by designating S1805's proposed 498,000 acres as national monument (including 240,000 acres with the strictest designation of Wilderness) we do not gain any real protection of the land; but forfeit a great deal of flexibility regarding its future use. This is not a good tradeoff.

Another risk of the monument proposal is border security. While S1805 allows our Border Patrol the use of motorized access within the proposed wilderness areas; it also restricts this use to "while in pursuit of a suspect." This means our agents may be denied access if they are simply responding to leads or need to accomplish periodic patrolling in the wilderness areas; allowing drug smugglers and human traffickers the potential for a safe haven.

The Southwestern Border Sheriffs' Coalition represents 31 sheriffs whose counties are within 25 miles of the U.S. border with Mexico. This credible coalition is opposed to S1805 because of the potential for a safe haven.

Unfortunately, this potential has turned into a reality for our western neighbor's monument. Since Arizona created the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument along its southern border, it has experienced significant increases in dangerous activity along its border, according to a report from the U.S. National Parks System.

This is convincing evidence to at least not approve the monument areas along our southern border with Mexico.

Another risk of S1805 is economic. The irreversible national monument designation will forever prevent our ability to use potential energy or develop on this land; sacrificing future jobs, tax revenues and funding for education to our local community.

For example, Utah's Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument was designated by President Clinton in 1996 with much fanfare. But it locked up the largest deposit of compliance coal in the United States and took billions of potential dollars from the state's education fund.

Ironically, like here, there were studies in Utah promising increased economic activity if the national monument was created. Unfortunately, these predictions of prosperity did not materialize.

As a matter of fact, "only when large-scale federal transfers accompany the designation of wilderness does it appear that wilderness designation has a meaningful impact on the economic conditions of an area," according to the Institute for Political Economy investigating the conflicting belief regarding the economic impacts of federally designated wilderness areas.

Las Cruces is, arguably, one of the more economically depressed counties in the nation; we cannot afford to let potential economic opportunities like this slip through our hands.

Hopefully, New Mexicans will be able to manage our own lands some day. In the meantime, monument-wilderness designation would reap much more risks than rewards. We should say no to the proposal and enjoy the perfect balance we have with the BLM.

T. Bert Lance, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under Jimmy Carter said it best, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Read all of Neal's articles at nealhooks.com; or contact him atnhooks.f15@gmail.com

ODESSA, Texas (AP) — A West Texas man has been charged with impersonating an officer by using sirens and flashing lights to skip to the head of the drive-thru line at a fast-food restaurant. Full Story